namatad:Stone Meadow: So, you still have nothing to say about their info being used to improve traffic safety, eh?

WTF are you talking about?are you saying that the data can NOT be used to improve safety?

WTF am I talking about? I'm talking about your claim that the data could be used to improve traffic safety. Specifically, I challenged you to show one instance...JUST ONE, where the data were used to improve traffic safety.

I'll make it easy on you. There aren't any such instances, because the camera company isn't in the business of traffic safety. It's in the business of making money off the cameras by making fighting the citation all but impossible, and use seductive and corrupting marketing pitches to local government -- you can increase revenues with our cameras -- to sell their services.

"Yet Doherty's argument goes deeper - to the mixed bag of statistical analysis on the public benefit of the cameras. Studies have gone both ways, but the most relevant one for New Jersey was released last November, based on the incidence of accidents at camera intersections around the state. The study found that overall the number of crashes went up 0.9 percent, while the incidence of right-angle crashes, which tend to be the worst, went down 15 percent. Doherty points out, however, that the rate of rear-end collisions went up 20 percent and resulted in more injuries, and that severity of injuries in the "T-bone" crashes increased, even as the incidence dipped.Clearly, the devil is in the details - and the details, while not yet based on long-term observation, don't make the case that intersections with cameras are safer."

It's funny, how people say "safety" and it's magically supposed to be true. It never occurs to them to follow the money. If red-light cameras were money losers or revenue-neutral they wouldn't exist, safety be damned. They are fundraisers, pure and simple.

penthesilea:FTFA:...the City Council ordered the Arizona company to shut off the data-collecting cameras.

....American Traffic Solutions left the sensors inside the cameras active for months to collect the data without the city's knowledge.

The city may not legally have the right to remove the company's equipment on their own or shut them off, but they can damn sure cover the damn things so that they can't keep recording. Grab some black trash bags, duct tape, and a cherry picker. Problem solved.

namatad:so no one drives better when they know that they might get a ticket automatically??LOLOL

If only you had read that it increases rear-end collisions and the intensity of t-bone accidents. Clearly that indicates improved driving and/or safety. LOLOL? Yes, I'm laughing at you. What is this, AOL Instant Messenger?

Bungles:Are you suggesting speed limits have just been randomly chosen by moon-goblins to irritate you, as opposed to vast amounts of global traffic statistics over 50 years?

As a matter of fact, yes. Speed limits should be set to the 85th percentile. In practice that is how fast people go anyway regardless of the posted speed limit. There are a few exceptions, but there are enough instances of speed traps to establish a pattern of people setting them artificially low to raise funds.

Note that speed traps do not exist in states where the accumulated fine money goes to the state and not to the locale that issues the ticket.

namatad: ...their data could actually be used to save lives and greatly improve safety

Show us one...JUST ONE instance of that ever happening. *Crickets*

Look, this company exits for one reason...to make money, and they aren't giving away shiat for free, much less valuable information. The ONLY reason they left the cameras on was that they hoped to reactivate their contract with the city, whereupon they could have turned in all the violations they had gathered in the meantime. Why else do you think they sued the voters, and got a judge to rule the voters couldn't overrule the contract?

Hopefully the voters will convince the Board to finally cancel the contract. Nothing like the threat of getting voted out of office to get them to see the light.

skinink:" American Traffic Solutions, and another red light camera company, unsuccessfully backed a lawsuit challenging the petition drive, and then again challenged the ballot measure after voters approved banning the cameras by 57 percent.

This month, a Riverside County Superior Court judge ruled that the voters do not have the right to dictate traffic management."

I love how the council wants to overturn the vote to give these suckers more money when they breached the last contract. There must be serious bribe $.¢ going on here, in the form of campaign contributions.

" American Traffic Solutions, and another red light camera company, unsuccessfully backed a lawsuit challenging the petition drive, and then again challenged the ballot measure after voters approved banning the cameras by 57 percent.

This month, a Riverside County Superior Court judge ruled that the voters do not have the right to dictate traffic management."